N. H. BHATT, S. H. SHETH, J.

( 1 ) MR. Mehta has argued that the complaint lodged by this witness Ex. 49 is not admissible in evidence because it is hit by sec. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Mehta information of a cognizable offence was given much earlier to the police. He has invited our attention in that behalf to the deposition of Batuksing Bavansing Police Station Officer in charge of Mehsana Taluka Police Station at the relevant time. He is P. W. 13 Ex. 29. His evidence discloses that he had received a telephonic message from Police Head Constable Prakash at about 1-25 p. m. informing him that a quarrel had taken place between Rabaris and the watchmen and that the Rabaris had run away after having assaulted the watchmen and that therefore the needful should be done. He did not record that message in the telephone register maintained by the Police Station. Therefore we really do not have before us the exact message which was received on telephone from Head Constable Prakash who was at Sobhasan. As soon as he received the telephonic message from Head Constable Prakash he did not record it in the telephone register of the Police Station but issued an order in writing to Head Constable Mahebub Pathan to proceed to village Sobhasan. At Ex. 30 is the written order which he issued to Head Constable Pathan. 2 It gives us an idea as to what information he had received. The order issued by him to Head Constable Pathan (Ex. 30) shows that a scuffle or Maramari had taken place between Rabaris and watchmen at Sobhasan and that the watchmen had suffered more injuries. It also shows that the Rabaris after having assaulted the watchmen had run away. The Police Station Officer therefore directed Mahebub Pathan to do the needful in the matter. Mr. Shah has argued that the information received by the Police Station Officer Mehsana was not the information of a cognizable offence and that therefore it was no information at all which would render the complaint Ex. 49 inadmissible in evidence under sec. 162 Criminal Procedure Code. In order to convince us that the information which was given by Head Constable Prakash to the Police Station Officer Mehsana as disclosed by Ex. 20 is admissible in evidence Mr. Mehta has invited our attention to sec. 320 I. P. C. According to him it was an information relating to grievous hurt and therefore that information was of a cognizable offence. Clause Eighthly of sec. 320 on which Mr. Mehta has placed reliance provides as follows:-THE following kinds of hurt only are designated as grievous:-EIGHTHLY.-ANY hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. THE evidence of Head Constable Prakash Gopal P. W. 12 Ex. 28 who gave information to the Police Station Officer Mehsana shows that at about 12 noon as at 1 p. m. when he returned to village Sobhasan after having patrolled the fields situate in the south of Sobhasan he saw a crowd near the house of Somabhai Bhaichand. He and his four policemen therefore went there. The deceased had been lying unconscious there. His son P. W. Galabji was standing there. On an inquiry made by him he was told by P. W. Galabji that a quarrel had taken place between the Rabaris and the watchmen of the village. He therefore posted his policemen there went to a factory in the neighbourbood and gave formation to Mehsana Police on telephone of the incident The evidence of P. W. Batuksing read in light of the order issued by him to Head Constable Pathan Ex. 30 and the evidence of P. W. Prakash Gopal makes it clear beyond any doubt that Head Constable Prakash Gopal had given him information that the deceased had become unconseious. It is therefore quite clear that the information which Head Constable Prakash Gopal had given to Mehsana Police Station was an information which showed that the life of the deceased was in danger. In any case it was capable of sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document